Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by ppk55

A court would say there is no backpack.

The PLSS is there, it is the visor mixed with the angle of the astronaut standing that makes it look like its not there, yet the shadow says HEY I AM HERE!



[edit on 15-6-2010 by theability]

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by Komodo

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Komodo

 

and it doesn't prove there are either does it?

If we already HAVE a way to measure .. since the EARLY 1600ad, then why stick the 'mirrors' on the moon. and .. hmmm.. since when did we have the tech in the 60's to 'shoot' a laser and pricisly hit a mirro that is what.. all of 2ft square; since the computing power in a calualator now days is more powerfull than was in the Apollo LMAO .. yeeeeeah ..

If it doesn't prove they didn't, why did you bother to post it? And then act like it did? As for hitting a mirror on the Moon with a laser: you realize that a laser beam isn't perfectly parallel, don't you? By the time the beam hits the Moon it's over a kilometer wide... no need for pinpoint accuracy, really. Laser measurements have allowed astronomers to calculate that the Moon is receding from the Earth at a rate of 3.8 centimeters per year. Can you calculate that with a trig table? Since you clearly know all the answers, there would be little point in reading this:

news.bbc.co.uk...

wow.. so now I know all the answers.. hmmmk .. if you say so,.. so .. can you plz post what the laser looked like back in .. ohh.. 1960's.. cuz we BARELY broke ground on computers then !!!

Since someone else is trying to hijack the thread, I thought I'd bring it back to earth (as it were). Are you still having trouble with the concept of the laser being developed in 1960, and used to measure lunar distance not long after?

no .. i'm having a problem with you not stepping up to the plate and provide ATS with a picture of the exact laser that co-insides with your alleged data!! Do you have a picture of the EXACT laser, unmodified, first generation laser they had mounted?

not sure what you're talking about 'hijacking' the thread.. if you please provide us with who is doing this and show how their posts aren't relevant to the thread.. it IS about NASA moon hoax(s) .. is it not ??

as I said before..

can you plz post what the laser lookedlike back in .. ohh.. 1960's

Originally posted by Komodo


no .. i'm having a problem with you not stepping up to the plate and provide ATS with a picture of the exact laser that co-insides with your alleged data!! Do you have a picture of the EXACT laser, unmodified, first generation laser they had mounted?

Why? Are you that inept that you can't read the references you were given on the early lasers? What will a picture of an early laser do that the references won't?

So you STILL believe that mankind had not invented the laser in the early 60s? Do you really want to stick with that?

not sure what you're talking about 'hijacking' the thread.. if you please provide us with who is doing this and show how their posts aren't relevant to the thread.. it IS about NASA moon hoax(s) .. is it not ??

Actually the thread is about Jarrah White's videos, but that isn't my point. pkk already has a thread going about his "mysterious" picture, and now he decides one thread isn't enough, he has to hijack this one to talk about the exact same thing.

And it is "coincides".

reply to post by Komodo


OMG!!!!

I have actually, after a very brief search, found an image from the

(and I might gag a little in my mouth)...

'livingmoon" website!! (I know, I know...so, shoot me!)

www.thelivingmoon.com...

BUT...what better source for a "die-hard" 'Hoax-Believer' than one of the biggest (?) ermmm.....'alternate sites' out there???

( R.I.P. John Lear! )....what....excuse me....[pssst....pssst...pssss]....



>harumph< I may have been misinformed, Ladies and Gentlemen...it seems the actual physical demise of Captain John Lear ... ahhh, I see....yes, a prank@! OK, got it!! (That Lear, sucha prankster, all the way to the end...oops...NO, not the end, yet....)

th will get a message from the 'soul collector array' on the FarSide of the Moon, when and 'IF' John Lear ever manages to "shuffle off this mortal coil"...



[[[This comical interlude brought to you by the beverage !Tang!

!Tang! Just like the beverage that went to the Moon! Drink, !Tang! ]]]


NOW>...back to our regular programming!!

Be sure, folks, to tune in Next Week for.....!Gunsmoke!!! (On all of these regular stations....)

[Bing, Bang, Bong...."The NBC Radio Network"!]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Komodo

 

OMG!!!!

I have actually, after a very brief search, found an image from the

(and I might gag a little in my mouth)...

'livingmoon" website!! (I know, I know...so, shoot me!)

www.thelivingmoon.com...

BUT...what better source for a "die-hard" 'Hoax-Believer' than one of the biggest (?) ermmm.....'alternate sites' out there???

Sorry weed, but that won't do, I'm sure. Komodo wants the actual FIRST laser used to measure the distance from the earth to the moon.

He shouldn't get his hopes up, first of all, it was actually a MASER, which shot pulses, not a coherent beam, that the MIT team used, and second, they actual used a 12" Cass. telescope to send the pulses. So it won't look very impressive.

But I guess this gives him an "out". We can't actually prove lasers (a maser is a type of laser) existed in the 60s because we don't have a picture of the one they used to send the first pulses to the moon.

????

Whatever.

reply to post by Tomblvd


Perhaps this is the sort of 1960's technology he had in mind:

www.solcomhouse.com...

I'm not sure what he's driving at, myself.

Originally posted by DJW001

I'm not sure what he's driving at, myself.

Well, considering he didn't think lasers existed in the 60s, I'm hoping he doesn't drive at all, or at least near where I live.

Just FYI.. here's how to get a high-resolution TIF of that image.

1. Download the highest resolution JPEG.

2. Open it in ANY image editor. Save as a TIF.

3. Pu t it on a file sharing website.

Claim you are a unique hero.


Key issues with this image:
1. An illusion where a number of factors make him look like he is facing away, when he is actually close to straight on.

2. Lack of contrast - the shadowed areas of the astronaut are very close to the same greyscale shade of the background. very obviously details are being lost.

3. Falsification of detail by INTERPOLATION - PPK has refused to acknowledge the interpolation, let alone state the method used. Let me repeat - that enlarged crop includes FALSE detail.

By his refusal to acknowledge his source and his refusal to acknowledge the enlargement and the interpolation method, PPK is clearly, AGAIN, misleading this forum and I think it's about time he was called to account.

I have to work - be back in a few hours to elaborate. Count on it, PPK. I'll also post the details to the other thread - WHICH IS WHERE THIS SHOULD HAVE STAYED.

Oh, and in the spirit of this thread, here's a partial argument by Youtube:

lmao Can't believe this thread is still going. If the moon believers really believed we landed then why continue these arguments? But I noticed one thing though watching documentaries from the apollo 11 moon landing. They said the most dangerous part of the trip for them was the reentry of the earth's atmosphere.

Now wait a minute....what about the Van Allen Radiation Belt? Even the Hubble telescope has to be turned off in heavy fields. They even stated in the documentaries that they were basically on the moon for about a day. Enough to get exposed to some sort of radiation.

I am still trying to believe, but that darn radiation.....

Originally posted by dragnet53
.

Now wait a minute....what about the Van Allen Radiation Belt? Even the Hubble telescope has to be turned off in heavy fields. They even stated in the documentaries that they were basically on the moon for about a day. Enough to get exposed to some sort of radiation.

I am still trying to believe, but that darn radiation.....

Here is a diagram of the flight trajectory of Apollo 11 superimposed over a map of the flux contours of the VA belts.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/182645f81663.gif[/atsimg]

As you can plainly see, the capsule missed the areas of highest particle density.

It's as simple as that.

www.braeunig.us...

reply to post by dragnet53


"moon believers"???

If the moon believers really believed we landed then why continue these arguments?

Ya got it entirely backwards, sparky....

There is a minority of HBs out there....and their vile filfth, and incredibly sometimes, in thier twisted World View 'clever' arguments need to be swatted down, and made fun of, and put in the proper place....lest they continue to infest, and thus infect, those gullible enough, and (sadly) still slightly lacking in the technical aspects, although not fatally so, people who come across the BS, and might tend to be 'convinced', even if only temporarily...

There comes a point in every child's life when the FACT of Santa Claus, and the Tooth Fairy are made known.

Those who persist in inhabiting such a poorly-constructed "reality", where Apollo Mission "hoaxes" are part of their paradigm?? Well, it IS their choice...but, those people do NOT have the right to infect others with their lies, and delusions, and rank paranoia. It is damaging to the overall mental health of the rest of Humanity......



[edit on 15 June 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by CHRLZ
Just FYI.. here's how to get a high-resolution TIF of that image.

1. Download the highest resolution JPEG.
2. Open it in ANY image editor. Save as a TIF.
3. Pu t it on a file sharing website.

Claim you are a unique hero.

I was about to make a similar comment. I took the 1.3mb high res .jpg image off ALSJ and saved it as a .tiff in photoshop and it ends up being 15mb.

However ppk's image is larger (3976x3942) than ALSJ's (2340x2350) and the largest I can find through a Google image search is 3077×3000. But ppk's image could have easily been upsampled. The refusal to disclose the source seems really fishy to me.

Originally posted by dragnet53
If the moon believers really believed we landed then why continue these arguments?

Why not continue these arguments? This is a debate after all. Do you have an issue with people debating this topic? And why do you say this only to Apollo believers and not to both sides? That's rather biased.

A big reason to continue debating this topic is to expose the ignorance HB's have with this subject. For example, from your own post:

Now wait a minute....what about the Van Allen Radiation Belt? Even the Hubble telescope has to be turned off in heavy fields.

As illustrated by Tomblvd. Apollo went through the weaker part of the belts. So the exposure to the radiation in the belts was minimal.

I am still trying to believe, but that darn radiation.....

Have you been following CHRLZ's posts on radiation? If not, I suggest you give them a read. Radiation does not equal instant death as some HB's seem to believe.

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by dragnet53
.

Now wait a minute....what about the Van Allen Radiation Belt? Even the Hubble telescope has to be turned off in heavy fields. They even stated in the documentaries that they were basically on the moon for about a day. Enough to get exposed to some sort of radiation.

I am still trying to believe, but that darn radiation.....

Here is a diagram of the flight trajectory of Apollo 11 superimposed over a map of the flux contours of the VA belts.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/182645f81663.gif[/atsimg]

As you can plainly see, the capsule missed the areas of highest particle density.

It's as simple as that.

www.braeunig.us...

Just like some teams on sports look good on paper, but when the season begins they just fall apart or don't do what is expected.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by dragnet53

 

"moon believers"???

If the moon believers really believed we landed then why continue these arguments?

Ya got it entirely backwards, sparky....

There is a minority of HBs out there....and their vile filfth, and incredibly sometimes, in thier twisted World View 'clever' arguments need to be swatted down, and made fun of, and put in the proper place....lest they continue to infest, and thus infect, those gullible enough, and (sadly) still slightly lacking in the technical aspects, although not fatally so, people who come across the BS, and might tend to be 'convinced', even if only temporarily...

There comes a point in every child's life when the FACT of Santa Claus, and the Tooth Fairy are made known.

Those who persist in inhabiting such a poorly-constructed "reality", where Apollo Mission "hoaxes" are part of their paradigm?? Well, it IS their choice...but, those people do NOT have the right to infect others with their lies, and delusions, and rank paranoia. It is damaging to the overall mental health of the rest of Humanity......



[edit on 15 June 2010 by weedwhacker]

34% people in America surely don't believe we went. That is not a small minority. Even the constant delays of the constellation program and the high so called costs just make me question things. Hell, they haven't even designed a lander for the program. All those billions of cash went to what?

reply to post by dragnet53


Well dragnet explain this first posted by jra on here

files.abovetopsecret.com...


One half is taken from the Apollo 17 DAC video as they left the Moon
the other half from the LRO mission taken almost 40 yrs apart.

Now as the lander and surrounding area was filmed as the
Astronauts left the Moon and you can see craters and the tracks left
by the Astronauts during the mission can you explain this.

As all the features are to small to be seen from Earth with ANY
repeat ANY telescope can you explain how they match.

Its the same with all the LRO landing site pictures you can check
the position of all the landers at the landing sites from the pictures
the Astronauts took and the positions with surrounding features
match up with the LRO shots as they SHOULD.

All the reasons ever given to say its a hoax have been debunked
many times from the No stars in pictures , the shadow problems, the flag waving etc etc

The REAL problem as I see it is PRIDE people like yourself CANNOT
admit you got it wrong and you wont accept any answer that PROVES YOU WERE WRONG.

Originally posted by dragnet53

Here is a diagram of the flight trajectory of Apollo 11 superimposed over a map of the flux contours of the VA belts.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/182645f81663.gif[/atsimg]
As you can plainly see, the capsule missed the areas of highest particle density.
It's as simple as that.

Just like some teams on sports look good on paper, but when the season begins they just fall apart or don't do what is expected.

Wow, dragnet, you're *really* good at this!... that was a *devastating reply*. You worked your way through it superbly, showed all the maths, related the figures to actual radiation exposure taking into account the hull materials... Fantabulous. Nothin's gunna get past you.

But.. I hope you don't mind if I do all that TOO, just to verify it? As you may have noticed, the stuff I'm posting on the radiation issue is fairly comprehensive (yeah, just like your stuff!), and I'm getting close to the Apollo mission.

I'll also be doing an executive summary at the end (including a version using short words for those with reading/comprehension difficulties).

PPK55, before I deal with the content of that image, I'd like you to answer a couple of pertinent questions.

First up, can I point out that I'm not necessarily doubting that it is a genuine higher resolution scan - after all, at least two projects are gradually rescanning the Apollo images at higher resolutions as scanning technology gets better, so new scans are appearing as time progresses, and that will continue.

But I would ask you this..
1. Why the big deal about where it came from?
An examination of the image shows that it is only marginally bigger than the largest *easily* found image, and MORE IMPORTANTLY, it is not of significantly better quality - it shows NO more useful detail whatsoever than the already presented image. If you claim it does, please point out that detail...

2. Can you or your 'source' explain why the EXIF data on the file states it was last edited in Photoshop CS3, a coupla days ago?
The exif states, and I quote (anyone can check this by downloading the file for themselves)

Software : Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows
Date modified : 2010:06:14 12:10:16

Note that I'm NOT suggesting you have changed the image in some way to further your cause, but I AM suggesting that something smells..

After you answer those (or even if you don't...), I'll post some further supporting information on why your conclusion about the image is horribly flawed. And I'll toss in a little discussion about interpolation, with examples...


Again, count on it.

[edit on 16-6-2010 by CHRLZ]

Originally posted by dragnet53
Even the constant delays of the constellation program and the high so called costs just make me question things. Hell, they haven't even designed a lander for the program. All those billions of cash went to what?

The main focus for the Constellation program has been mostly on the Ares 1 and Orion spacecraft, as they were the key components for getting astronauts back into space after the Shuttle retired. Due to NASA's limited budget, they can only focus on so many things at once. The Ares V and the Lander wouldn't have been needed until a later date.

However they did come up with a design concept for a lander called Altair. The design hadn't yet been finalized, but it would have looked something like what is shown in the link.

What do the high costs make you question though? Government agencies generally aren't the most efficient when it comes to money and the bureaucracy at NASA is pretty bad from what I understand. The high costs was one of the big criticisms of the program and one of the reasons why it was canceled. This is why their is a big push for commercial spaceflight, it should help to make things more affordable. There is less red tape and little to no 'design by committee' happening in a private company.

Originally posted by Komodo


no .. i'm having a problem with you not stepping up to the plate and provide ATS with a picture of the exact laser that co-insides with your alleged data!! Do you have a picture of the EXACT laser, unmodified, first generation laser they had mounted?


as I said before..

can you plz post what the laser lookedlike back in .. ohh.. 1960's

Since Komodo seems to have pulled another disappearing act, I'll spare him the suspense and give him what he wants, but I still want to know why this is so important to the question at hand.

Here is a picture of the Maser developed at MIT in the late 50s and used to first measure the distance from the earth to the moon:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bb55e851e6e4.jpg[/atsimg]

More informaion on the Maser

And here is a description of "Project Luna See" (get it?).

Optical Echoes from the Moon

A ruby optical maser radiating pulses of approximately 50 joules energy, 0.5 msec. duration, at 6943 A was used as the source. The transmitting optical system included a Cassegrain telescope of 12-inch diameter. The echoes were received on a Cassegrain telescope of 48-inch diameter, passed through an interference filter of 7A band-width and were detected with a photomultiplier tube of spectral response type S-20 cooled to liquid nitrogen temperature. The field of view of the receiving telescope was 0.2 milliradians.

The photoelectron count obtained in a 0.5 msec. interval at the expected time-delay was contemplated with the counts obtained in 0.5 msec. intervals where no echoes would be expected and where the only relevant contributions to the count were scattered light (photoelectric dark current was negligible).

Everything is there, spelled out in easy to understand terms, but I doubt it will matter much to Komodo.

Originally posted by ppk55

Originally posted by theability
I call BS.

Does the image below look like BS to you ? Is that astronaut missing his backpack ? Do you really think I'd divulge who provided me with this high res photo ?

You u2u'd me asking me to host the file .. do you still want me to do that ?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/74cab6317ddf.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d4521d866d5f.jpg[/atsimg]

edit: hopefully the source is still available at www.yourfilelink.com...


[edit on 15-6-2010 by ppk55]

The problem with the photo is not only the missing backpack, but the shadow itself. The shadow is too short! That might as well be the shadow of a small boulder



shadows are supposedly be pretty long:




Oh NASA